Define Pete Dye

[Eric_Terhorst]

Over on George Pazin’s “How do you determine what an architect’s defining work is?” thread, the argument is made that one work might be used to “define” a golf course architect, and extended by some to include the suggestion that you can define artists by a single work.

For me the idea that you can “define” a great artist, like da Vinci, or Picasso, or Beethoven, or, coming back closer to earth and the present time, the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Frank Lloyd Wright, or Andy Warhol (he has a museum and store dedicated to his work!) by one work is preposterous.  Similarly, I say golf architects, if they are great, can not be “defined” by one work—even a book on the subject, however lengthy and filled with beautiful illustrations, still struggles to “define” the person and his work.  These endeavors add to our knowledge, but imo the truly great architects (and other artists) give us a body of work that defies the prosaic limits of definition.  

Pete Dye is one of the great ones. The Wikipedia entry for Mr. Dye gives the obligatory one-paragraph “bio” that mentions the 17th at Sawgrass (gawd, how predictable), and a partial listing of his courses.  The ASGCA Member Profile, described as “uncompleted,” mentions eight courses, none of which are TPC Sawgrass.  According to Wiki, he’ll be 82 on December 29. He has a body of work we can play on, try to understand, and critique.  He has a long list of modern architects he has influenced or mentored.

Perhaps among our august membership we have someone who can “define Pete Dye.”  Please go ahead, if you have such an insight I’d love to read it and be proven wrong!

[Tom_Doak]

Eric:

I'm in total agreement with your point, but I also know Mr. Dye better than most here, so I'll take a shot at this:

Above all, Pete Dye was (and is) a contrarian.  He loved golf and understood how different players go about it, as well as any architect ever has.  He believed that all true golfers love a challenge and that the most important thing was not to build a course that was too dull or too easy.  His great sense of humor helped to lighten the severity of his designs for the average player.

He was stereotyped by some for his use of railroad ties to bulkhead greens or bunkers, but when that became a popular stereotype, he stopped it completely in the mid-80's and always chuckled about how no one had noticed.  He became famous first for Harbour Town which bucked the trend of big and long courses in the late 1960's, with its tight fairways and small flat greens.  The Tour professionals loved it and chose him to build the TPC at Sawgrass, which was reviled by the same players for its ferocious difficulty.

His greatest talent was his ingenuity and his ability to find solutions to construction problems (drainage, etc.).  He was also a tireless worker who loved nothing more than to spend days on site with the construction crew, refining his design throughout its creation.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Tom,

Thanks for your reply.  I sense some "things that I found personally important and still apply to my own work" in your response.  Perhaps that's one reason why the great ones defy definition--each of us has a deep personal response to their work.

You also refer to his evolution and desire not to be stereotyped.  That to me stands out as a trait of the great artists--they certainly don't stamp out the same stuff over and over again.  And just when you think you might have them figured out, they confound you.

[Eric Pevoto]

Succinct.  

(see http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewdye.html)

[Andy Troeger]

Perhaps the definition of any great artist (whether a painter or golf course architect) is that they evolve over time and evade any real definition.

[JESII]

I thought Q&A #10 was particularly interesting in that Pete Dye interview...otherwise it seemed like he was late for a plane and was trying to fill out a paper interview as quick as possible.


Would definition happen at the end of the road instead of along it?

[Rich Goodale]

The Pete Dye interview is a masterclass in minimalism.

[Matthew Hunt]

The Pete Dye interview is a masterclass in minimalism.

Funniest post of the year

[Gary Daughters]

A couple of years ago I had the idea to phone Pete Dye for an on-line piece I was writing.

I was surprised at how easy it was to find him.  A housekeeper (I think) answered the phone, and then WOW I'm talking to the man himself.

Dye seemed not care for any formal introduction, so I fired off questions and he fired off answers.  His voice kind of explodes.  More than once he would bellow "Hold the phone!" to consult correspondence about the matter at hand that, oddly, just happened to be lying around.  

Dye was thoughtful, candid and gracious and seemed to enjoy talking with a total stranger.

Based on our conversation, I wound define Pete Dye as delightful.

[Ron Farris]

I have always felt that one could define Pete Dye as a great businessman.  Who else out there is doing golf courses without signing contracts?

Perhaps the best expression I have heard from Pete say was: (paraphrasing) "There are no guarantees in golf. Hell, I have a green falling in the Ocean on one coast and one falling in a lake here."  Christ your dealing with Mother Nature here!  

That was while at Whistling Straits.  Ocean Dunes was falling in the Pacific.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Who else out there is doing golf courses without signing contracts?

Rod Whitman  

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom Doak - Why are your comments about Mr. Dye phrased in the past tense?

Tomorrow I am playing Heron Point at Sea Pines Resort... Pete Dye's completely new course built over the old Sea Marsh course property. According to the management at Sea Pines they would concur with all your statements about Mr. Dye, especially the comments about spending tiime on site and "refining" his design throughout creation. I'm told that numerous holes on the new Heron Point course are nothing like the original plans that were created when the project was first approved. Mr. Dye decided to change them on the fly as the construction was progressing during his many days on site. Sounds like at 82 he is still up to his old tricks.

[PThomas]

a genius in his field, one of the greatest and most important architects ever

[mark chalfant]

gifted artist and creative  Mentor to many fine students and perhaps.........

Disciple of  Langford  !

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

I interviewed Pete for a video we're doing on the History of Kiawah Island last April when he was here for the Golf Writers Association of America's golf outing.  The interview lasted over an hour and ten minues.  What he was great at was giving the answer he wanted to give regardless of the question.  If he didn't get into golf course architecture, he could have had a career in Washington...

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

I used the past tense because I haven't spent much time with Pete for twenty years now, and I know that he doesn't spend as much time on sites as he used to, leaving more of the work to Tim Liddy and others.

I am not surprised he hasn't changed his attitude toward plans, which were only meant to get approvals for construction.  Once we were on site, nobody ever looked at a plan.  On a project I worked with, the client asked why a certain hole did not look like what had been on the plans, and Pete asked him "What do you think I'm spending all this time here for?  I'm trying to make the course better than before I knew the ground this well.  If you just wanted to build it to a plan I wouldn't have to be here at all."

[George Pazin]

Eric, I think you are reading too much into my thread - too much rigidity, too much stereotyping, too much seriousness, too much imposition of limits, etc.

Suggesting an architect has a defining work is merely asking if there is a course that illustrates his thinking in a reasonably complete fashion.

Is asking if there's a defining work any different that Tom - or anyone else, for that matter - trying to sum up years of experience with Pete Dye in a single post?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Thanks to all for the responses.

George P,
Perhaps I was overzealous in my reaction to your thread, but the attempts to illustrate with the artistic connection stuck in my craw.  e.g., I trekked through the Louvre and waited in a long line to see Mona Lisa, and was underwhelmed.  That the artist was able to pack so much into a tiny picture and that the portrait has achieved the status of cultural touchstone is great.  But I'm betting da Vinci would have a violent reaction to the suggestion that it is his "defining" work--he has so many other accomplishments that set him apart.  

Isn't the attempt to define by citing one work simply a poor substitute for real study?

You're correct that our little posts can't hope to "define" a great architect.  I think the posts here reflect a little of Mr. Dye's accomplishments and impact, but even taken together don't amount to definition.  That is exactly my point--we could go on a thread marathon and still not get the job done.  

I chose Dye because I thought he would be difficult to pin down.  Maybe you could pick 10 courses, play them each a dozen times with a variety of players, and BEGIN to understand his thinking in a "reasonably complete fashion."  But I think more likely you will be left with more questions than answers.

[George Pazin]

Isn't the attempt to define by citing one work simply a poor substitute for real study?

I'd argue that the very attempt to figure out one defining work requires a great deal of study.